CHAPTER 2: US FOREIGN POLICY DISCOURSE BETWEEN 2000 AND 2008
2.2 US INVOLVEMENT IN WORLDWIDE HEALTH-RELATED ISSUES
While the war on terrorism has received the most attention thus far, another issue of significant relevance may be discussed in order to assess the underlying messages of formulating foreign policy objectives in the United States during the Bush administrations:
worldwide health matters and the role of the United States in framing the discourse surrounding international issues such as HIV/AIDS or abortion. Generally speaking, the two seem quite related, yet political decision-making and the subsequent rhetoric behind the discussion of such concerns can, at least for the purposes of this chapter, be analyzed separately.
This second section of the chapter, although slightly less lengthy than the previous one, is nonetheless aimed at providing a better understanding of the motivations and roots of American foreign policy under Bush. The analysis is based both on facts and on the actual discourse surrounding and justifying the decisions made.
2.2.1 HIV/AIDS
Let us now turn to the specificities of the process of dealing with the worldwide problem of HIV/AIDS in the American context. Before Bush’s taking office, “[t]he Clinton administration was instrumental in moving HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases on to the international agenda”107. Further attempts in this direction were made as early as January 2000, when problems caused by the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa were brought to the attention of the UN Security Council.108
The general belief was that the disease constituted “not just a humanitarian crisis”, but
“a security crisis”, as it threatened “not just individual citizens, but the very institutions that
107 Fraser Cameron, op. cit., p. 176.
108 This marked the first time when a health-related issue and its potential risks on the course of international development and interaction had been considered among the members of the respective international organism.
CEUeTDCollection
define and defend the character of a society.”109 The “devastation caused by the epidemic posed a clear and direct challenge to long-term US economic and security interests”110, especially under such circumstances that HIV/AIDS was literally destroying whole communities, including their economies, at the same time “depriving countries of the educated and skilled individuals required to build democratic governments, professional militaries, and free market economies”111.
Naturally enough, passivity would not be a solution, so, in order to meet this challenge, the United States was required to elaborate and implement, in collaboration to other countries that had the capability and willingness, some sort of a long-term strategy. The US thus found itself in the position to act. Along with other donor nations, the US highlighted the importance of having trained military contingents in the African states (the most affected by the pandemic), so that the peace-keeping capabilities would not suffer too much at the expense of HIV/AIDS. With a view to both regional and world stability, it seemed to be “in the interest of the United States, as well as of the African nations to have healthy, professional militaries ready to carry out these roles.”112 HIV/AIDS posed a serious challenge to such interests, which, coupled with the impact of the disease on economic development, formed a solid enough basis for the US to adopt a pro-active approach.
It is under such circumstances that Bush came to increasingly acknowledge the importance of tackling the implications of HIV/AIDS particularly in Africa. The administration thus decided on the commitment of resources to the long-term struggle against the spread of the disease. One of the first steps taken in this respect was the announcement made by Bush in September 2003 that the US would contribute large sums of money to the United Nations AIDS campaign, at the same time re-engaging the US as an active force in
109 Al Gore, cited in Fraser Cameron, op. cit., p. 176.
110 Fraser Cameron, op. cit., p.176.
111 Ibidem.
112 Idem, p. 177.
CEUeTDCollection
combating HIV/AIDS internationally.113 Bush also reinforced America’s commitment to the fruitful search for a curing vaccine.
The 9/11-events would change the focus in American foreign policy discourse and shift the emphasis almost exclusively upon issues related to the combat of international terrorism, as well as worldwide and homeland security. Consequently, “attention was diverted away from Africa, apart from countries such as Sudan that were charged with complicity to terrorism”114, and focused predominantly on the situation in the Middle East.
2.2.2 US FUNDING AND ABORTION CLINICS ABROAD
As early as January 2001, news was out that “[t]he new US President, George W.
Bush, has signed an executive order cutting off federal funding to international agencies which support women seeking an abortion.”115 Perhaps the most cited reason for such a decision was that Bush rejected the idea of American taxpayers’ money to be used in order to fund abortion operations.116 What this implied was that US governmental aid or funding was prohibited “to any institution or non-government organization that provides abortion services or provides information to the public about the availability of abortion”117.
Naturally enough, national and international “family planning groups” alike “reacted with dismay to Bush’s decision”118. However, the administration argued that the funding cuts meant that “the US Government will no longer be using taxpayer dollars to try to legalize
113 Fraser Cameron, op. cit., p.177.
114 Yifat Susskind, “African Women Confront Bush’s AIDS Policy”, Foreign Policy in Focus, December 2, 2005, available at: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2969 (accessed May 2009).
115 BBC News, “Bush Blocks Abortion Funding”, January 23, 2001, available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1131329.stm (accessed May 2009).
116 Trish Reimers, “Bush Imperils Third World Women’s Lives”, Green Left Weekly, October 22, 2003, available at: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2003/558/29383 (accessed May 2009). What Bush did in January 2001 was to reinstate “the ‘global gag’ rule on international family planning assistance that the US administration of Ronald Reagan had announced at the UN-sponsored Second International Conference on Population in Mexico City in 1984”.
117 Ibidem.
118 BBC News, “Bush Blocks Abortion Funding”.
CEUeTDCollection
abortion in countries in Latin America, Africa and Muslim countries in which the people are strongly opposed to abortion”119 anyway, and that national efforts in this direction contributed to shifting the focus on a series of steps that could “make abortion rare”120. But what is still less clear is where such rhetoric stemmed from. Was it the result of pure mathematical calculations or more of a way of signaling alternative ways of dealing with the issue?
Either way, in making this decision, America was not only assuming the role of a great power121, but it was also doing this at the expense of its popularity and the support coming from the countries the abortion policy was allegedly harming. The decision was also seen as a strike against the women of the poorest countries in the world, and feminist activists were the first to point in this direction.122 At the same time, criticism was also aimed at highlighting the undemocratic composition of this particular decision, as well as the US applying double standards in this regard.123
Furthermore, the rule was thus viewed as “fundamentally undemocratic and also imperialist”124 by some. Critics argued heatedly that it was, in fact, “a law of political convenience”125, in that it constituted a response to anti-abortion religious groups in the US at the expense of the population of Third World countries. Moreover, as time passed, it was also suggested that America’s decision to cut funding for abortion clinics in these countries not only did not prove successful, but, in fact, raised the probability of unsafe abortions taking place and, consequently, more lives being lost or altered.
119 Douglas Johnson, then legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, cited in BBC News,
“Bush Blocks Abortion Funding”.
120 BBC News, “Bush Blocks Abortion Funding”.
121 Trish Reimers, op. cit. In fact, this “global gag rule is only one example of how the US brings its immense wealth to bear in pressuring the Third World to conform to US government policies”.
122 See, for instance, Kira Cochrane, “Bush’s War on Women”, AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, Bangkok AIDS, Conference, January 29, 2007, available at: http://www.actupny.org/reports/Bangkok/bush_gagrule.html (accessed May 2009).
123 Laura Katzive in Kira Cochrane, op. cit.
124 Kira Cochrane, op. cit.
125 Ibidem.
CEUeTDCollection
The September 11 events again shifted the attention from such global health care matters – as was the case with the HIV/AIDS policy discussed in the previous subsection. In 2003, however, the discussion was once again brought to resume financial contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).126 Despite intense and continued criticism, as well as in light of the foreign policy changes that were taking place relative to combating terrorism, the “abstinence-only”127 policy proposed by Bush continued throughout the rest of his first term and into his second one. Not much changed, though, in terms of formulating policy, and the issue remained at least as controversial as it had been previously.
All things considered, though, “the US government remains by far the largest single source of funding for international reproductive health programs”128, and Bush’s legacy is bound to depict him as a veritable “pro-life president”129. On the other hand, it also seems that, as was the case with most policy areas – and foreign policy issues, in particular – George W. Bush was set until the end of his presidential terms to not only initiate, but carry out an almost complete rethinking of the parameters of the decision-making process. This further begs the question of what exactly determined such a policy revolution. The following chapter of this thesis deals exclusively with examining the potential sources of the American foreign policy discourse from roughly the years 2000-2001 to 2008.
126 “House to Consider UNFPA Funding; US Support for Key International Family Planning Agency at Risk”,
Population Action International, June 12, 2003, available at:
http://www.populationaction.org/Press_Room/Viewpoints_and_Statements/2003/House_to_Consider_UNFPA_
Funding_U.S._Support_for_Key_International_Family_Planning_Agency_at_Risk.shtml (accessed May 2009).
127 “Bush Puts Anti-Abortion/ Anti-Birth Control Doctor in Charge of Funding for Family Planning”, Revolution, No. 71, December 3, 2006, available at: http://revcom.us/a/071/keroack-en.html (accessed May 2009).
128 Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, U.S. Department of State, “Action Today, A Foundation For Tomorrow: Second Annual Report to Congress on PEPFAR”, February, 2006, available at:
http://www.state.gov/s/gac/rl/c16742.htm (accessed May 2009).
129 Jacob Goldstein, “Activists Push Bush to Cut Funds for Abortion Clinics”, The Wall Street Journal Blogs, available at: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/23/activists-push-bush-to-cut-funds-for-abortion-clinics/
(accessed May 2009).
CEUeTDCollection